This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 02/17/2020 at 11:08:13 (UTC).

MARO BABUDZHYAN VS KIKUYE ERIN KOYANO ET AL

Case Summary

On 04/12/2017 MARO BABUDZHYAN filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against KIKUYE ERIN KOYANO. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are LAURA A. SEIGLE and AMY D. HOGUE. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****7336

  • Filing Date:

    04/12/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

LAURA A. SEIGLE

AMY D. HOGUE

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

BABUDZHYAN MARO

Defendants and Respondents

KOYANO DUANE

KOYANO KIKUYE ERIN

DOES 1 TO 10

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

BAZIKYAN ARMINE

KACHATOORIAN HOV

Defendant and Respondent Attorneys

YOUNG EL MAHDI ESQ.

RIVERA VIVIAN I. ESQ.

YOUNG EL MAHDI

 

Court Documents

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER TO CONTINUE TRIAL)

8/22/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER TO CONTINUE TRIAL)

Special Verdict

11/15/2019: Special Verdict

Statement of the Case

11/15/2019: Statement of the Case

Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE NON-TESTIFYING WITNESSES

11/15/2019: Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE NON-TESTIFYING WITNESSES

Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 1 TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE OF HEALTH INSURANCE OR REIMBURSEMENT RATES

11/15/2019: Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 1 TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE OF HEALTH INSURANCE OR REIMBURSEMENT RATES

Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE TO PRECLUDE PLAINTIFF'S USE OF IRRELEVANT AND PREJUDICIAL REPTILE THEORY

11/15/2019: Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE TO PRECLUDE PLAINTIFF'S USE OF IRRELEVANT AND PREJUDICIAL REPTILE THEORY

Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 2 TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE THAT PLAINTIFF WAS REFERRED TO DOCTORS BY AN ATTORNEY OR THAT PLAINTIFF TREATED ON A LIEN

11/15/2019: Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 2 TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE THAT PLAINTIFF WAS REFERRED TO DOCTORS BY AN ATTORNEY OR THAT PLAINTIFF TREATED ON A LIEN

Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL

11/27/2019: Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL

Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL; OR ALTERNATIVELY TO SHORTEN TIME ON NOTICE AND MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE AND ALL RELATED DISCOVERY AND MOTION CUT OFF DATES

2/3/2020: Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL; OR ALTERNATIVELY TO SHORTEN TIME ON NOTICE AND MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE AND ALL RELATED DISCOVERY AND MOTION CUT OFF DATES

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL;)

2/4/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL;)

Opposition - OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL SECOND PHYSICAL EXAMINATION

2/4/2020: Opposition - OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL SECOND PHYSICAL EXAMINATION

Notice of Ruling

2/7/2020: Notice of Ruling

NOTICE OF ASSOCIATION OF COUNSEL

8/13/2018: NOTICE OF ASSOCIATION OF COUNSEL

ORDER AND STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL FSC AND RELATED MOTION DISCOVERY DATES PERSONAL INJURY COURTS ONLY CENTRAL DISTRICT

8/24/2018: ORDER AND STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL FSC AND RELATED MOTION DISCOVERY DATES PERSONAL INJURY COURTS ONLY CENTRAL DISTRICT

Substitution of Attorney

1/22/2019: Substitution of Attorney

Ex Parte Application - Ex Parte Application for an order to attend a mandatory settlement conference

2/1/2019: Ex Parte Application - Ex Parte Application for an order to attend a mandatory settlement conference

SUMMONS -

4/12/2017: SUMMONS -

Other - - Demand for Jury Trial

9/13/2017: Other - - Demand for Jury Trial

27 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 04/02/2020
  • Hearing04/02/2020 at 08:30 AM in Department 27 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/19/2020
  • Hearing03/19/2020 at 10:00 AM in Department 27 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Final Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/19/2020
  • Hearing02/19/2020 at 13:30 PM in Department 27 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Motion to Compel Independent Medical Examination

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/11/2020
  • DocketReply (to Plaintiff's Opposition to Motion for an Order to Compel Second Independent Physical Examination of Plaintiff Maro Babudzhyan); Filed by Kikuye Erin Koyano (Defendant); Duane Koyano (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/07/2020
  • DocketNotice of Ruling; Filed by Kikuye Erin Koyano (Defendant); Duane Koyano (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/04/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 27, Laura A. Seigle, Presiding; Hearing on Ex Parte Application (to continue trial;) - Held - Motion Denied

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/04/2020
  • DocketOpposition (to Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Second Physical Examination); Filed by Maro Babudzhyan (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/04/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Ex Parte Application to continue trial;)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/03/2020
  • DocketEx Parte Application (to continue trial; or alternatively to shorten time on notice and motion to continue trial date and all related discovery and motion cut off dates); Filed by Kikuye Erin Koyano (Defendant); Duane Koyano (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/24/2020
  • DocketMotion to Compel (second independent physical examination of plaintiff Maro Babudzhyan); Filed by Kikuye Erin Koyano (Defendant); Duane Koyano (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
45 More Docket Entries
  • 06/20/2018
  • DocketReceipt; Filed by Kikuye Erin Koyano (Defendant); Duane Koyano (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/18/2018
  • DocketNotice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information; Filed by Maro Babudzhyan (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/18/2018
  • DocketNOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/13/2017
  • DocketDemand for Jury Trial; Filed by Kikuye Erin Koyano (Defendant); Duane Koyano (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/13/2017
  • DocketAnswer

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/13/2017
  • DocketDemand for Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/13/2017
  • DocketAnswer; Filed by Kikuye Erin Koyano (Defendant); Duane Koyano (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/12/2017
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Maro Babudzhyan (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/12/2017
  • DocketSUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/12/2017
  • DocketCOMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC657336    Hearing Date: February 19, 2020    Dept: 27

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: MOTION FOR AN ORDER COMPELLING SECOND PHYSICAL EXAMINATION OF PLAINTIFF

On April 12, 2017, plaintiff Maro Babudzhyan (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendants Kikuye Koyano and Duane Koyano (collectively, “Defendants”) for injuries arising from a May 5, 2015 car accident. On June 19, 2018, Plaintiff submitted to a medical examination with Dr. P. Douglas Kiester, who evaluated Plaintiff’s cervical and spinal injuries. On September 13, 2019, Plaintiff was examined by her expert witness, who recommended an evaluation to rule out thoracic outlet syndrome (“TOS”). The TOS diagnosis was first confirmed on November 6, 2019 by Lawrence Miller, M.D.

Defendants seek an order compelling a second medical examination with Dr. Ranjan Gupta, who specializes in TOS. “Nowhere does the Legislature specifically limit the number of available examinations, either mental or physical. The authoritative discovery commentators agree that multiple defense examinations are permitted on the necessary showing of good cause.” (Shapira v. Superior Court (1990) 224 Cal.App.3d 1249, 1255.) A showing of good cause requires “that the party produce specific facts justifying discovery and that the inquiry be relevant to the subject matter of the action or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” (Vinson v. Superior Court (1987) 43 Cal.3d 833, 840.) “The requirement of a court order following a showing of good cause is doubtless designed to protect an examinee’s privacy interest by preventing an examination from becoming an annoying fishing expedition.” (Ibid.)

Defendants argue Plaintiff just recently raised the issue of TOS with the diagnosis in November 2019, after Defendants’ first examination, and that Dr. Kiester, who performed the first examination is an orthopedic expert and does not specialize in TOS. Defendants argue they are entitled to have an expert examine Plaintiff regarding TOS, which is a more specific diagnosis then her previously claims of more general injury to her neck, shoulder, and back. Plaintiff argues Dr. Kiester’s examination was sufficient because Plaintiff is not claiming a new injury, just a new diagnosis.

Because TOS is a more specific diagnosis, which Plaintiff only recently raised, Defendants have shown good cause to have a TOS expert examine Plaintiff. If Plaintiff plans to present evidence of the TOS diagnosis at trial, and have a TOS expert testify at trial about that diagnosis, Defendant is also entitled to have a TOS expert who has examined Plaintiff.

Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED. Plaintiff asserts she is not available on the date noticed for the examination but did not submit any evidence of unavailability, explain why she is not available, or offer other dates. Therefore, the physical examination conducted by Dr. Gupta will take place at 1:30 p.m. on February 20, 2020 at 555 East Ocean Blvd., Suite 500, Long Beach, CA 90802, unless the parties agree to a different date and time. The nature, scope, condition and manner of the examination are to be as set forth in Defendants’ demand.

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative.